3 ms·
That, I think, is how this article is trying to re-frame the conversation. If we describe someone using my details to take out a loan in my name as "identity th
by mnw21cam 9y ago
That, I think, is how this article is trying to re-frame the conversation. If we describe someone using my details to take out a loan in my name as "identity theft", then it sounds like the onus is on me to sort it out and (possibly) absorb some of the cost of doing so. If we describe it as "credit fraud", then that makes it clear that the problem lies with the loaning organisation, is independent of me, and I should suffer no consequences.
- wccrawford 9y agoEither way, "identity theft" or "credit fraud", the onus is on someone other than the corporation that let it happen. It's the victim, or the criminal, but neither of them blame the corporation with the name alone. So I don't see any point in trying to get millions of people to change what they call it, if that's the other option.
- panopticon 9y agoI think the point is to change the way people think about the situation. If you reframe the problem for enough people, it might become an issue politicians campaign with.
- wccrawford 9y agoExactly, but as I pointed out, they've failed to reframe it so that the company is at fault. It's still the same thing under those 2 names. They're putting all that work into a new name that doesn't do what they want.